LGO Individual Decisions

Summary: There is no evidence that Mr X contacted the Council to agree a payment arrangement before the case was passed to enforcement agents for recovery. There is no evidence of fault in the actions of the enforcement agents and so the fees incurred are correctly owed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sending penalty charge notices to the wrong address. This is because the Council has agreed to cancel the bailiffs warrant, refund the fees paid and reissue the penalty charge notice. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a property the Council helped the complainant find in 2020. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Council delay in refunding Mr X with money he paid for a penalty charge notice. This is because the Council has told me the payment is now being processed and will be paid within ten days. I am satisfied with this action.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an emergency move for the complainant. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to cancel two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) it issued. The complainant has already taken court action to deal with council enforcement of the PCNs, and it would be reasonable for him to appeal to a tribunal against the PCNs themselves.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not follow the law when assessing the complainant’s housing application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council using Miss X as the point of contact for her neighbour’s care. We are satisfied with the action it proposes to take, to provide a symbolic payment to remedy the distress and inconvenience it caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the problems the complainant had renewing her disabled persons freedom pass. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council wrongly removed her from the housing register and failed to move her to a suitable property. She said she suffered distress from living in unsuitable accommodation and was denied the ability to bid on properties. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to complete tree pruning work. This is because the complainant has not suffered a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to retrospectively increase the complainant’s housing benefit. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the main entrance to a school. It was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr X could not have complained to us sooner. Even if the complaint was not late, the central issue is a dispute about compensation for public works affecting the complainant, and it would be reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Upper Tribunal as set out in law.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed installing a disabled parking bay near her property. The Council has already admitted to delays but stated they occurred because work stopped during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing a significant backlog. Under these circumstances, we do not find fault. The Council’s failure to explain on its website that it can exercise discretion when determining disabled parking bay applications is fault. It has agreed to amend its website to make this clear.

Summary: Ms X complains the chair of a child in need meeting bullied her and the Council has delayed in providing respite for her daughter. We cannot come to any view on whether the chair of the child in need meeting bullied Ms X. The Council is not at fault for the delays in securing respite provision for Ms X. But it is at fault for not considering Ms X’s complaint through the children’s services statutory complaints procedure

Summary: Ms Z, on behalf of her mother Ms X, complained about the Council’s action in respect of her finances. There is fault by the Council in failing to start a safeguarding investigation at the appropriate time; delay in progressing a safeguarding investigation and failure to ensure Ms X's needs were met when it suspected her son was financially abusing her. A suitable remedy has been agreed.

Summary: A woman complained that the Council had delayed unreasonably in processing her housing register application and unfairly decided she is intentionally homeless. But we will not investigate these matters. This is because any fault by the Council regarding the woman’s housing register application has not caused her an injustice to warrant our involvement. In addition, she has separate review and appeal rights she can use to dispute the Council’s homelessness decision.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained about the way the Council considered their request for Mrs C to be included as part of the household in the application for rehousing. They further complained about whether the Council had properly considered their overall circumstances and whether discretion should be exercised to increase their priority for rehousing. There was no fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a request for a copy of an adoption certificate. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would achieve a worthwhile outcome or add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s poor service regarding a penalty charge notice issued to Ms Y. They are challenging the Council’s debt recovery order at the County Court’s traffic enforcement centre.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Penalty Charges for moving traffic violations. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is outside our jurisdiction because the complainant has appealed to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with Mr X’s council tax account. The Council has already provided enough remedy. There is not enough unremedied injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about delay in providing information. This is because the response has not caused so significant an injustice as to warrant the Ombudsman’s intervention

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Mr X’s former landlord. This is because this is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Housing Service. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.